Blog - Page 46 of 76 - ConsortiumInfo.orgConsortiumInfo.org | Sponsored by <strong><a href="https://www.gesmer.com/" target="_blank">Gesmer Updegrove</a></strong>

There They Go Again: It’s Time to Just Say No to Microsoft and Ecma

6/29/2007

Scope:

The goal of the Technical Committee is to produce a formal standard for office productivity applications within the Ecma International standards process which is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats. The aim is to enable

…

Standards, Virtual Worlds and The Big Question

6/24/2007

It was not so long ago that most kids in school experienced a predictable "Oh Wow!" moment when they learned about atomic structure (that's "Oh Wow!" as in, "What if our solar system is, like, you know, just an 'atom' in this, like, really big 'molecule' thing called a galaxy and…").

Today, of course, that Oh Wow! moment is more likely to be sparked by a video game or, more recently, a visit to a virtual world. And after all, it was time for a change anyway, what with the discovery of subatomic particles, and the assumption that there's no physical "there" there at all – just electronic charges. Or whatever. Personally, I've always found the video game day dream more appealing and amusing than the atomic theory in any case. After all – how much difference is there between energizing a monitor and the Big Bang? Oh Wow!

The old concept of life as being something other than what we suppose returned to me just now while checking in at Bob Sutor's Open Blog, where I read about a Virtual Worlds Conference held at MIT on June 15 and find a live blog entry at Virtual Worlds News on a panel that Bob moderate. And yes, there's (of course) a standards hook in here somewhere.

Live from the Mass. Technology Leadership Council Open Source Summit

6/19/2007

Updated 7:40 AM June 22: Dan Bricklin has now posted his own blog entry on the event here, which includes not only multiple audio podcast segments for the entire event, but also his 1 hour and 10 minute video podcast of the OLPC demo (follow the URL at Dan's blog).

Open source summits seem to be all the rage these days, so I'm blogging from another one this week. In this case, it’s the second somewhat similar event staged by the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council, the largest and oldest technology membership association in the Commonwealth. Rather than repeat the dance card, you can see my prior entry on the program here. Dan Bricklin is taping the event, so I'll add a link to the podcast here when he posts that. Interestingly (or incongruously) enough, the event is being hosted by Microsoft, consistent with its somewhat schizophrenic strategy of both moving cautiously into the open source marketplace while at the same time seeking to protect its core products from erosion. (Dan is also doing his usual Happy Feet routine, dashing around the room with a microphone to capture every question.)

I arrived somewhat late, due to the even more than usually villainous traffic this morning on Route 128, but caught most of the first panel (the legal one) which overviewed events of note over the past year, as well as first-hand accounts from members of some of the GPL3 committees of what it's been like in those venues as the parlous process of consensus building proceeded in the run up to the imminent release of the final version of GPL3. Karen Copenhaver did a great job chairing the panel, and the presentations were interesting and informative, but didn't inspire any particularly provocative comments or questions from the floor. The good news here is that the emotional stage of GPL3 creation is over, and consensus has been reached. The fact that there are no new suprises to be learned and no arm waving to be engaged in means we should be able to look forward to a smooth release and roll out of the final text of the new license.

Things are picking up now, with vendor panel, chaired by a puckish Jay Batson, a VC from Northbridge Ventures, and one of the event organizers.

Live from the Linux Collaboration Summit

6/13/2007

I'm attending the Linux Foundations' first annual Linux Collaboration Summit from the Google campus in Mountainview California today and tomorrow, and will add periodically to this post as the day goes along.

We're set up in one of the many Google buildings in what used to be the Silicon Graphics campus. As a result of its reinhabiting someone else's space, it's not quite as opulent as you might think from the reports one hears. There are plenty of accoutrements around to make the point, though, from what appear to be communal fleets of bikes that you can take from building to building, electric scooters, and the occasional corporate Segway tootling along or plugged into a wall socket. Strangely, though, it seemed as if a malign presence was always just outside, like some horrible monster from a cold and damp northwestern state. We could feel in our bones that it did not wish Linux well.

Be that as it may, at the Linux Foundation board meeting the day before all was quite cozy – we had Kobi steak garnished with lobster tail, so I assume that Google provided us with a typical recruiting lunch. Later, our collective mob will descend on one of the Google cafeterias, to sample the sushi bar and other selections. Together with the spectacular Silicon Valley weather and the funky accommodations at the Wild Palms Hotel where many of us are staying, it makes the East Coast scene feel pretty drab in comparison because, uh, well, I guess in comparison it's pretty drab.

Legislators Wimp Out on Open Document Format Bills

6/10/2007

To begin with, it was disappointing to hear legislators complaining that taking responsibility for the long-term availability of public documents should not be their concern. In Minnesota, Don Betzold, the Democratic state senator who was the original sponsor of the

…

MTLC Open Source Summit – June 19

6/06/2007

For those of you in the Boston area, or not too far away, there's an event that I've helped plan that I think you'd find quite worthwhile. It's even cheap, as such things go, at $20 a head for members of the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council, and $40 for non members. It's titled the Open Source Summit, and will feature quite a few excellent panelists, including the following folks that I've known for quite a while and respect greatly:

Karen Copenhaver, an open source licensing expert who's also a member of one of the GPL3 committees. Karen was formerly the General Counsel of Black Duck Software, before returning to private practice at local law firm Choate, Hall & Stewart
Scott Peterson, the Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property, Hewlett-Packard Company / Andover, MA. Scott is an "expert's expert" on both open standards as well as open source, and the guy I call when I want the opinion of someone I can rely upon
Bob Sutor, VP Standards & Open Source, IBM, who regular readers of this blog will know is the top guy at IBM on ODF strategy, as well as much more formidible blogger.

One of the principle topics will be the latest on GPL3 and What it All Means, which is to say what it all means up to that minute in the unfolding story, as told by quite a few folks that are very much in the middle of things, not only on the drafting side, but on the market side as well, such as (in addition to Bob Sutor):

Larry Alston, VP of Corporate Strategy, Iona
Don Fisher, VP of Online Services, Red Hat
Justin Steinman, Director of Linux Marketing, Novell

The Linux Foundation Speaks

5/25/2007

Last week you may have read a number of articles quoting Jim Zemlin, the Executive Director of the Linux Foundation, responding to a Fortune article appropriately titled Microsoft Takes on the Free World. The big news in that article was to be found in the gnomic statements by Microsoft's General Counsel, Brad Smith, in which he articulated (after a fashion) its current patent intentions in relation to Linux, OpenOffice, and other important open source software.

As you might expect, a formal response takes a bit longer to move into the media in the right way – you want a placement in a venue that commands respect and has a large business readership, and you want to be sure you use your 700 words to maximum effect. We've been working on that response over the last week, and it was posted at the BusinessWeek.com site at Noon EDT today (disclosure: I'm legal counsel to LF, and also a member of its Board of Directors). You can find Jim's statement on behalf of LF here, and it opens like this:

Last week, Microsoft (MSFT) initiated what can only be described as a rather bizarre public-relations campaign in which they alleged that Linux and Open Office may violate hundreds of the software maker's patents. While some of the mainstream press reported Microsoft's statements as news, many journalists and bloggers keenly identified the most intriguing aspect of this aggressive maneuver: a glimpse of a threatened giant struggling to keep a grasp on its empire. What most people don't realize is that the story really isn't about patents at all—it's about a rational actor trying to protect its privileged position.

Microsoft Announces UOF-OOXML Translator Project with China

5/21/2007

We shall go on to the end,...we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…

- Winston Churchill, June 4, 1940

If there was any doubt left in anyone's mind that Microsoft will do everything that it can, and wherever it must, to ensure that ODF makes the minimum inroads possible into its vastly profitable Office franchise, the news of the day should put that doubt to rest. In the continuing tit for tat battle between ODF and OOXML, Microsoft announced yesterday it's own interoperability project to bridge the gap between China's domestically developed Unified Office Format (UOF) and Microsoft's OOXML. The announcement tracks the intent of an already-existing "harmonization" committee, hosted by OASIS, that is exploring interoperability options between ODF and UOF, and also underlines Microsoft's increasing focus on the vast Chinese market.

This news is no surprise, in one sense. Microsoft has been waging a nation-by-nation battle for the hearts and minds of ISO/IEC JTC1 National Bodies, in an effort to win adoption of OOXML (now Ecma 376) as a global standard with equal status to ODF (now ISO 26300). In order to do so, it needs to offset the argument that one document format standard is not only enough, but preferable. With UOF representing a third entrant in the format race, easy translation of documents created using the competing formats would obviously be key to lessen the burden on customers. Moreover, last month, Sun Microsystems Chairman Scott McNealy called for the outright merger of UOF and ODF in a speech he delivered in Beijing – just a few days before Bill Gates arrived to keynote a Microsoft conference being held nearby.

Nice Standard You’ve Got There (Hate to see you use it…)

5/17/2007

My, my, how's anyone with a blog supposed to get his day job done this week? Bob Sutor at IBM just sent me to his writeup on Microsoft's latest release, titled (the press release, that is), "Microsoft Votes for Choice." The lead paragraph reads:

Microsoft Corp. today announced that it has voted to support the addition of OpenDocument Format (ODF) 1.0 to the nonexclusive American National Standards list. The vote took place as part of a process managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

That's a good thing, right? Well, yes, it is, as far as the vote goes. But when was the last time you saw a vendor issue a press release about one of the many standards votes it casts on an ongoing basis? Bob highlights the language from the press release that makes it clear that the PR motive for the release is to pave the way for the eventual submission of Ecma 376 (the Microsoft OOXML format) for similar approval:

Another new standard that the company anticipates will be approved for ANSI’s list is the recently ratified ECMA Open XML File Formats. Known in standards-body circles as ECMA-376, the new open standard is under review by ISO, with a final vote expected in late 2007 or early 2008 following a ballot vote in early September.

Rather than repeat what Bob has already concisely stated, you should read his argument that we need fewer, rather than more document formats. But I can't help noting one coincidence (?) that strikes me between the timing of this press release and the Fortune article that I wrote about yesterday.

Through the Patent Looking Glass with Microsoft’s Brad Smith

5/16/2007

'I can't believe that!' said Alice . 'Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. 'Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.' Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.' 'I dare say you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

As I expect you are already aware, Fortune Magazine's Roger Parloff has authored an in-depth, and extremely well written, article called Microsoft Takes on the Free World. The article appeared on Sunday, and immediately unleashed a torrent of secondary commentary, interviews and analysis.

As well it might. That's because Parloff reported that Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and other senior Microsoft executives allege that Linux, OpenOffice and other open source software violate no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents – and that Microsoft thinks it's time that those that distribute and use this software should start paying royalties. When a company like Microsoft makes statements like that, people naturally stop and listen.

But that doesn't automatically mean that they should take the statements at face value, and especially when they are so contradictory. For example, what does one make of the fact that Microsoft wants royalties, but doesn't want to sue anyone to get them? And if Microsoft really believes that it has so many patents that are being infringed by Linux, why has it waited so long to assert them? And given the differences between Linux and Windows, why has it never asserted any of its patents against the many other operating systems – including Unix - that have existed over the years, each of which presumably infringed upon some subset (presumably major) of those same patents?

The Standards Blog